EPIAR INC v RAINIER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, 2012 ABQB 94
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
1.4: Procedural orders
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
This matter involved a Claim filed in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench alleging embezzlement of funds. However, the Alberta Claim was preceded by a Claim filed in Texas by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, for similar allegations. The Plaintiff brought an Application for a declaration that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and declaring that Alberta was the most convenient forum for the hearing of the Action. The Defendant then applied for an Order adjourning or temporarily staying the Plaintiff’s Application on the basis that there was a Motion to Dismiss being considered by the Court in the Texas Action that would resolve the matters at issue. The sole issue before the Court was whether the Plaintiff’s Application should be adjourned or stayed pending the decision of the Texas Court.
The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant’s Application to adjourn was not within the parameters of Rule 3.68, which deals with significant deficiencies of a claim. Macklin J. rejected this argument, and found that the Application to adjourn should be considered under Rule 1.4, which provides the Court with the authority to adjourn or stay an Application or proceeding. Furthermore, Macklin J. relied on Rule 1.2 and stated that an Adjournment of the Plaintiff’s Application was consistent with the purpose and intention of the Rules to facilitate the quickest means of resolving a claim with the least expense. The Application to Adjourn was granted.View CanLII Details